Author Topic: NCAA Rule Changes (Proposed) (Read 14592 times)

bossman72 · « **on:** February 26, 2026, 01:27:33 PM »

https://www.ncaa.org/news/2026/2/26/media-center-changes-proposed-to-penalty-structure-for-targeting-in-di-football.aspx

Grant - AR · « **Reply #1 on:** February 26, 2026, 01:33:59 PM »

What is the rationale behind this one?

Offensive pass interference penalties would be 10 yards. Currently, the penalty for offensive pass interference is 15 yards.

Stinterp · « **Reply #2 on:** February 26, 2026, 02:07:52 PM »

To bring in line with NFL

dammitbobby · « **Reply #3 on:** February 26, 2026, 05:01:24 PM »

I wonder if the OPI change is to maybe encourage officials to call it more often... if so, that's barking up the wrong tree. It's not called because it's not seen, not because officials pass on it and don't want to penalize the offense 15 yards.

IMO the rule is already inequitable, in that offense is always 15, while DPI depends on the spot... although they do get an automatic first down. I don't think it's right that a foul that nets the offense 3 yards (assuming the foul happened 3 yards downfield) should bail the offense out of a 3rd and 19 situation with an automatic first down. Make it 15 all the time, or do away with the auto 1st, and if it doesn't net the LTG, we keep progressing in that series.

Imperial Stout · « **Reply #4 on:** February 26, 2026, 08:03:32 PM »

So with leg coverings from the shoes to the bottom of the pants ... will knee pads be scrapped?

ElvisLives · « **Reply #5 on:** February 26, 2026, 08:56:39 PM »

Quote from: Imperial Stout on February 26, 2026, 08:03:32 PM

So with leg coverings from the shoes to the bottom of the pants ... will knee pads be scrapped?

Nobody worries about them, anyway, so who cares?
All I ask is that they write this leg coverings rule to say that there shall be no exposed skin below the bottom of the pant leg openings, not just that they need to wear leggings.

Imperial Stout · « **Reply #6 on:** February 27, 2026, 05:41:47 PM »

No skin it is….

You can either wear high socks that come up to the bottom of your pants, or you could wear some sort of leg covering -- tights -- whatever you want to call them," Shaw said. "We're looking for a no-skin gap. And if we have a skin gap and the officials recognize it, then they're going to send the player out of the game. And they have to stay out at least for one play but get it fixed."

ElvisLives · « **Reply #7 on:** February 27, 2026, 06:30:47 PM »

Quote from: Imperial Stout on February 27, 2026, 05:41:47 PM

No skin it is….

You can either wear high socks that come up to the bottom of your pants, or you could wear some sort of leg covering -- tights -- whatever you want to call them," Shaw said. "We're looking for a no-skin gap. And if we have a skin gap and the officials recognize it, then they're going to send the player out of the game. And they have to stay out at least for one play but get it fixed."

Good. Where/when did he say this?

Etref · « **Reply #8 on:** February 27, 2026, 07:14:02 PM »

Waiting to see the player with tights only, no pants

ElvisLives · « **Reply #9 on:** February 27, 2026, 07:27:09 PM »

Quote from: Etref on February 27, 2026, 07:14:02 PM

Waiting to see the player with tights only, no pants

I don’t think we’ll see that, but I DO think we’ll see some REALLY short pants with tights. Just take the responsibility off of us. But, for the good of the game, no exposed skin below the neck of the body and legs, or below the elbows of the arms.

Imperial Stout · « **Reply #10 on:** February 27, 2026, 07:33:07 PM »

Quote from: ElvisLives on February 27, 2026, 06:30:47 PM

Good. Where/when did he say this?

Shaw was quoted in an article with ESPN.

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/48054911/targeting-penalties-slowly-declining-2020-ncaa-says

ElvisLives · « **Reply #11 on:** February 27, 2026, 08:01:48 PM »

Quote from: Imperial Stout on February 27, 2026, 07:33:07 PM

Shaw was quoted in an article with ESPN.

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/48054911/targeting-penalties-slowly-declining-2020-ncaa-says

Thanks!

bossman72 · « **Reply #12 on:** February 27, 2026, 10:41:43 PM »

Quote from: Grant - AR on February 26, 2026, 01:33:59 PM

What is the rationale behind this one?

Offensive pass interference penalties would be 10 yards. Currently, the penalty for offensive pass interference is 15 yards.

My only guess is "because NFL" like a lot of the rule changes.

I understand the NFL because 15 yards is an absolute drive killer. NCAA for the most part is too, but the offensive firepower and the ability to recover from that in NCAA is a lot greater than NFL. That's kind of why I liked keeping it at 15 to maintain offensive/defensive balance. Oh well.

I'm kind of pumped they're bringing back the fair catch free kick. No tee though.

ElvisLives · « **Reply #13 on:** February 27, 2026, 10:52:32 PM »

So, what is an “awarded” fair catch? Like, maybe where the ball belongs to Team B after a KCI penalty?

Ralph Damren · « **Reply #14 on:** March 01, 2026, 06:43:43 AM »

Sorry to be nosey, guys, but I'm thrilled to see the NCAA to consider allowing a free kick following a fair catch. More often than not we (NFHS) try to copy them on rule changes !

While the excitement of this occuring may be in the minds of millions of college fans, the odds of such may not be high. In my 56 years of officiating, I have seen/heard of it occuring in Maine to be less than one

. Last season in the NFL, it did occur once, after a KCI

took the ball into FG range with time expired in the first half. With an untimed down, the kick sailed thru the pipes

for the first occurance in the NFL since 1976.

Enjoy the new rule...if it becomes that.

Ralph Damren · « **Reply #15 on:** March 02, 2026, 06:46:00 AM »

Quote from: ElvisLives on February 27, 2026, 10:52:32 PM

So, what is an “awarded” fair catch? Like, maybe where the ball belongs to Team B after a KCI penalty?

Yes, as in the play that occured at the end of the first half of last year's NFL game. In the NFHS book, the free kick option is extended to the following play if an accepted penalty during the play. EXP :
FC @ 50
DPI on 1st play
Ball@ B's 35
Free kick available = 45 yd/FG
Will the NCAA allow such

Only time will tell...until enjoy March Madness and Olympic Ice Hockey re-runs

ElvisLives · « **Reply #16 on:** March 02, 2026, 08:46:21 AM »

I hope that they do NOT allow a team a ‘delayed’ kick attempt after a down has been played following a fair catch. That makes no sense whatsoever. If they allow an uncontested field goal attempt following a fair catch, then you gotta take it right then.

But, I still go back to “What is an ‘awarded’ fair catch? That sounds like a KCI foul after a valid fair catch signal has been given (with or without a catch by Team B). OK, I can buy that. Anything else?

MAFBRef · « **Reply #17 on:** March 02, 2026, 09:09:54 AM »

Yes, in NFHS you get a redo if Team B fouls on the first offensive play by Team A after a fair catch. For example, Team A 1&10 at 50. Pass play by Team A with DPI. Result is Team A 1&10 at B-35. Team A can now opt to attempt a free kick. Any foul by Team B on play 1 after a fair catch creates a redo for Team A’s decision to free kick. It’s never happened to me and I pray it never does.

Grant - AR · « **Reply #18 on:** March 02, 2026, 10:02:08 AM »

Quote from: Ralph Damren on March 01, 2026, 06:43:43 AM

Sorry to be nosey, guys, but I'm thrilled to see the NCAA to consider allowing a free kick following a fair catch. More often than not we (NFHS) try to copy them on rule changes !

While the excitement of this occuring may be in the minds of millions of college fans, the odds of such may not be high. In my 56 years of officiating, I have seen/heard of it occuring in Maine to be less than one . Last season in the NFL, it did occur once, after a KCI took the ball into FG range with time expired in the first half. With an untimed down, the kick sailed thru the pipes for the first occurance in the NFL since 1976.

Enjoy the new rule...if it becomes that.

I remember hearing about this happening in Arkansas twice in the same season several years ago. And, both games were officiated by the same crew.

dammitbobby · « **Reply #19 on:** March 02, 2026, 10:06:00 AM »

As I understand it this is not a return kick, correct?

I've looked and looked in Anatomy of a Game and I cannot find anywhere that mentions this, so guessing it was something specific and unique only to NFHS (not something NCAA had, and then removed many moons ago)?

Ralph Damren · « **Reply #20 on:** March 02, 2026, 11:58:06 AM »

Quote from: dammitbobby on March 02, 2026, 10:06:00 AM

As I understand it this is not a return kick, correct?

I've looked and looked in Anatomy of a Game and I cannot find anywhere that mentions this, so guessing it was something specific and unique only to NFHS (not something NCAA had, and then removed many moons ago)?

A return kick was allowed in NFHS until 1965 (still is in CFL). Back in 1947 ,NFHS added a rule that a drop kick from a return kick could score a field goal. My best guess

is when the return kick was removed, a free kick after a fair catch was allowed to stay in. It has never came up for discussion at any NFHS Rules Committee meetings.

bossman72 · « **Reply #21 on:** March 02, 2026, 12:42:29 PM »

Quote from: ElvisLives on March 02, 2026, 08:46:21 AM

I hope that they do NOT allow a team a ‘delayed’ kick attempt after a down has been played following a fair catch. That makes no sense whatsoever.

In NFHS, when you replay the down, you get all of the options afforded to you again that existed for that particular down.
So you're essentially replaying the down after the fair catch, so you then get that free kick option again.

dammitbobby · « **Reply #22 on:** March 02, 2026, 01:21:02 PM »

I'm super curious as to who is advocating this change at the rules committee level. It seems like it is something that is really obscure and super rare, and I can't see what problem or inequity this rule is trying to solve.

ElvisLives · « **Reply #23 on:** March 02, 2026, 02:22:23 PM »

So, what happens if the kick is short? Is is treated just like a free kick? I.e., B can return? Ball is dead if it touches the ground in the end zone (untouched by B)? Ball is alive and legally recoverable by either team in the field of play? If unsuccessful, B gets the ball at the B-25?

I'l go on record as saying that the NCAA does not need this rule.

dammitbobby · « **Reply #24 on:** March 02, 2026, 03:52:49 PM »

Quote from: ElvisLives on March 02, 2026, 02:22:23 PM

So, what happens if the kick is short? Is is treated just like a free kick? I.e., B can return? Ball is dead if it touches the ground in the end zone (untouched by B)? Ball is alive and legally recoverable by either team in the field of play? If unsuccessful, B gets the ball at the B-25?

I'l go on record as saying that the NCAA does not need this rule.

I agree